JorgenCAB Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 2 hours ago, Lethaface said: There are also assault / attack / probe qb's. I agree that ME usually lead to what you describe and are not my favorite. The pro of qb is mainly you can't know what enemy has exactly imo. And quicker to setup not needing 3rd party. I do agree that any QB with a clear attacker and defender produce the most interesting games... that is what I play pretty much evert QB when I get to play them. Meeting engagements just seem very gamey for too many reasons. We still have the issue of points being very relative to scenario type, length, scope and terrain... to the point it is almost impossible to get it "right" no matter how much you want it to... at least in terms of "balance" (if there now is such a thing in war... ) We all of course want to play a game that is "balanced" in terms of victory points, but that is a different issue. In my opinion we would be better of if the game gave us more historically plausible forces based on the map, terrain and mission types and then we just play the forces we are given. I think the whole I need to select the units I like is generally bad for the overall fun part (or balance for that matter). Such "random" generated scenarios could even add some random events such as reinforcement never arriving or reinforcement arriving when not expected. Sure it takes away from the "duel" type of games with points and a mirrored map... but then why are you playing Combat Mission if that is your preference... there should be other games where butting head in a tactical challenge if wits is better suited. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.